The legislation must be tested in the light of Arts.14 and 19 as protection under Art.31-C is not available for the Amendment Act. The court considered various decisions including His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, and sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Mis. Bharat Coking Coal'Ltd. and others to interpret the legal provisions and their influence on the court's decision. The court held that the Amendment Act did not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and dismissed all original petitions.

Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act (for brevity, the act) came into force on 29-12-1988, providing for seven paid holidays, comprised of three national and four festival holidays. National holidays are Republic Day (26th of January), May Day (1st of May), and Independence Day (15th of august). Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Amendment Act, 1990 (for short, Amendment act) increased the national holidays from three to four with the addition of Gandhi Jayanthi, birthday of the Father of the Nation, foiling on 2nd of October. Festival holidays were increased from four to nine. Constitutional validity of the Amendment Act is under challenge in these original petitions. At the time of arguments, all concerned made it clear that Gandhi Jayanthi may continue as a national holiday Challenge was, therefore, confined to the addition of five festival holidays.

2. The Act is applicable to industrial establishments, which take in plantations also. Some of the petitioners are plantations and some are industrial or commercial establishments. Challenge is that Amendment Act is violative of Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Respondents denied violations and said that the restrictions, if any, are reasonable in the interest of the general public. But main argument was that the challenge cannot stand in view of the constitutional protection available under Art.31c of the Constitution, particularly when the legislation was enacted in discharge of the constitutional obligations under Art.43. Therefore, I shall first advert to the claim for protection under Art.31-C, because if that claim is found in favour of respondents, further considerations may be unnecessary, though it could be said the other way that if the legislation could stand scrutiny under Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) the question of protection under Art.31-C may not arise.

3. Art.31-C was introduced in the Constitution by the 25th Amendment, in the year 1971. First part of the Article says that notwithstanding anything contained in Art.13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Clause (b) or (c) of Art.39 shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Arts.14,19 or 31. Second part of Art.31-C is to the effect that no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy. Proviso says that when such law is made by the Legislature of a State, provisions of the Article shall not apply thereto, unless such law, having been reserved-for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.

4. Validity of this Article was challenged in the decision in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others v. State of Kerala and another (AIR 1973 SC 1461). Supreme Court upheld the validity of the first limb. but struck down the second limb. Thus, the first limb and the proviso alone survived the decision. Then Art.31-C was again amended by the 42nd Amendment Act, which received the assent of the President on 3-1-1977. S.4 of that Act amended Art.31-C to include all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV instead of the principles specified in Clause (b) or (c) of Art.39 alone. This and other amendments introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act were the subject matter of challenge in the decision in MinervaMills Ltd. And others v. Union of India and others (AIR 1980 SC 1789). By majority of 4:1, the 42nd Amendment in this respect was struck down. That means, the first limb of Art.31-C and the proviso, upheld in AIR 1973 SC 1461, alone survived. We are not concerned with the amendment of Art.368 introduced by S.55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, which was also struck down in AIR 1980 SC 1789. Net result of the decision is that a law that subserves the pri